Neil Conway wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-02-27 at 14:52 -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>> Gonna have to concur with that. Not that the sig is legally binding
>> anyway, we do need to have a disclaimer in the email stating that you
>> are assigning to PGDG
>
> I think it's pretty silly to start caring about this now. Do you think
> that in the absence of any signature/disclaimer attached to a patch,
> then the copyright for the change is "implicitly" assigned to PGDG? (I'm
> not a lawyer, but I believe that's not the case.)
I can tell you that it depends on the individuals relationship with
their employer. The employer may have agreement (most do) that will
state that whatever the employee does is owned by the employer.
Thus we may literally not have rights to the code. Do you really want to
go down the path of in 2 years, Fujitsu (No offense Fujitsu), but you
are the topic) decides that the code they provided is owned by them and
they didn't give us permission?
Joshua D. Drake
>
> -Neil
>
>
--
=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997
http://www.commandprompt.com/
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/
